Anthony Cra an Brief

8/13/2019 Anthony Cra an Brief

1/60

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSAPPEALS COURT

CASE NO. : 2012- P- 0534

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSAppel l ant

v.

ANTHONY CRAAN

Def endant - Appel l ee

ON APPEAL FROM A J UDGMENT OF THEBOSTON MUNI CI PAL COURT- DORCHESTER DI VI SI ON

BRI EF OF THEDEFENDANT- APPELLEE

Br i an J . Ander sonCant ant Law Of f i ces, P. C.141 Tr emont St r eet , 4t h Fl oorBost on, MA 02111( 617) 227- 8383

br i an@cont ant - l aw. c omBBO#: 670871
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/60

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i v

STATEMENT OF I SSUES 1

I . Whet her t he t r i al j udge c or r e ct l y s uppr es sed

t he evi dence wher e t he t r ooper l acked

per mi ssi bl e gr ounds t o or der Mr . Cr aan out

of hi s vehi cl e and subsequent l y sear ch i t

based onl y on: ( 1) t he smel l of unbur ned

mar i j uana comi ng f r om t he i nt er i or of t he

vehi c l e and ( 2) t he obs er vat i on of a s mal l

quant i t y of mar i j uana i nsi de t he vehi cl e . . . 1

I I . Whet her t he t r ooper l ac ked pr obabl e c aus e t o

bel i eve t hat Mr . Cr aan was oper at i ng under

t he i nf l uence of mar i j uana wher e Mr . Cr aan

exhi bi t ed no char act er i st i cs of i mpai r ment

and t her e was no evi dence of consumpt i on

i n t he vehi cl e 1

I I I . Whet her t he t r ooper coul d sear ch Mr . Cr aan' s

vehi c l e bas ed on vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw

wher e t her e was no evi dence of a f eder al

i nves t i gat i on or pr os ec ut i on and Ar t i c l e 14pr ovi des hei ght ened pr ot ect i ons agai nst

unl awf ul sear ch and sei zur e as compar ed

t o t he Four t h Amendment 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 3

A. J udge' s Fi ndi ngs of Fact 3

B . J udge' s Rul i ng 8

SUM~~RY OF THE ARGUMENT 9

ARGUMENT 12

i


3/60

I . The t r i al j udge cor r ec t l y s uppr e ss ed t he evi denc e

because t he t r ooper l acked per mi ssi bl e gr ounds t o

or der Mr . Cr aan out of hi s vehi c l e and

s ubs equent l y s ear c h i t bas ed onl y on: ( 1) t he

smel l of unbur ned mar i j uana comi ng f r om t he

i nt er i or of t he vehi c l e and ( 2) t he obs er vat i on

of a smal l quant i t y of mar i j uana i nsi de t he

vehi cl e 12

A. Legal St andar d 12

B. The t r o oper di d not pos ses s a r eas onabl e

f ear f or hi s saf et y or t hat of ot her s t o

j ust i f y t he exi t or der and sear ch 15

C. The t r ooper di d not have r eas onabl e

s us pi c i on bas ed on ar t i c ul abl e f ac t s t o

bel i eve t hat Mr . Cr aan was engaged i n

cr i mi nal act i vi t y 19

D. The t r ooper di d not have pr o babl e caus e t o

sear ch t he vehi cl e under t he aut omobi l e

except i on because t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence t hat i t cont ai ned a cr i mi nal

amount of mar i j uana 22

E. The Ar t i cl e 14 pr o t ec t i ons pr o nounc ed i n

Cr uz appl y r egar dl ess of whet her t he smel l

of mar i j uana i s bur nt or unbur ned 27

I I . The t r o oper di d not have pr obabl e c aus e t o

bel i eve t hat Mr . Cr aan was oper at i ng under t he

i nf l uence of mar i j uana because he exhi bi t ed no

char act er i st i cs of i mpai r ment and t her e was no

evi dence of consumpt i on i n t he vehi cl e 30

I I I . The t r ooper c oul d not s ear c h Mr . Cr aan' s vehi c l e

bas ed on vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw bec aus e t her e

was no evi denc e of a f eder al i nves t i gat i on or

pr osecut i on and Ar t i cl e 14 pr ovi des hei ght ened

ii


4/60

pr ot ect i ons agai nst unl awf ul sear ch and sei zur e

as compar ed t o t he Four t h Amendment 33

CONCLUSI ON 39

ADDENDUM 40

U. S. Const . amend. IV 40

Mass . Const . Pt . 1, ar t . XlV 40

G. L. c. 90, ~ 24( 1) ( a) ( 1) : : 40

G. L. c. 94C, ~ 32C ( a) . 41

G. L. c . 94C, ~ 32L. . 41

G. L. c. 94C, ~ 34. . 43

G. L. c . 269, ~ 10( h)( 1) . . 46

G. L. c . 276, ~ 2B. . 46

Commonweal t h v. Val l e, 80 Mass. App. Ct . 1115

( 2011) [ Rul e 1: 28 Deci si on] 47

Memor andum f r om Depar t ment of J ust i ce Deput y

At t or ney Gener al Davi d W. Ogden on I nvest i gat i onsand Pr osecut i ons i n St at es Aut hor i zi ng Medi cal

Use of Mar i j uana, t o Uni t ed St at es At t or neys

( Oct . 19, 2009) 50

CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE WI TH RULES OF COURT

PURSUANT TO MASS. R. APP. P. Rul e 16(k) 53

i i i


5/60

TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES

Ar kansas v. Sander s, 442 U. S. 753 ( 1979) 12

Beck v. Ohi o, 379 U. S. 89 ( 1964) 31

Commonweal t h v. Al mei da, 373 Mass. 266 ( 1977) . . . . 15, 16

Commonweal t h v. Al var ado, 423 Mass. 266 ( 1996) . . . 4 n. 3

Commonweal t h v. Bacon, 381 Mas s. 642 ( 1980) 20

Commonweal t h v. Bost ock, 450 Mass. 616 ( 2008) . . . . 19- 20

Commonweal t h v. Cas t , 407 Mas s . 891 ( 1990) 22, 23

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass. 459 ( 2011) . . 3, 14, 15- 16

18, 19, 20, 21, 22

23, 24, 25, 26, 27

28, 29, 30, 35, 36

Commonweal t h v. Damon, 82 Mass. App. Ct . 164

( 2012) 21, 24, 29

Commonweal t h v. Dani el , 81 Mass. App. Ct . 306

( 2012) 24, 25

Commonweal t h v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541 ( 1991) . . . . . . . . 16

Commonweal t h v. Gar den, 451 Mass. 43 ( 2008) . . . . . . 27, 28

Commonweal t h v. Gonsal ves, 429 Mass. 658 ( 1999) . . 15- 16

Commonweal t h v. I sai ah I . , 448 Mas s. 334 ( 2007) . . 4 n. 3

Commonweal t h v. J ohnson, 461 Mas s. 44 ( 2011) . . . . . . . . 14

Commonweal t h v. Lobo, 82 Mass. App. Ct . 803

( 2012) 14, 19, 21, 24

27, 29, 36, 38

Commonweal t h v. Loughl i n, 385 Mas s . 60 ( 1982) 14

Commonweal t h v. Hason, 387 Mass. 169 (1982) 23

Commonweal t h v. Mur phy, 454 Mass. 318 ( 2009) . . . . 13 n. 4

i v


6/60

Commonweal t h v. O' Connor , 420 Mass. 630 ( 1995) 31

Commonweal t h v. Ri ver a, 33 Mass. App. Ct . 311

( 1992) 16, 17

Commonweal t h v. Ri vet , 30 Mass. App. Ct . 973( 1991) 31

Commonweal t h v. Rovi ar o, 32 Mass. App. Ct . 956

( 1992) " . ' " " 31

Commonweal t h v. Si l va, 366 Mass . 402 ( 1974) . . . . . . 19, 20

Commonweal t h v. Sumer l i n, 393 Mass. 127 ( 1984) . . . . . . 16

Commonweal t h v. Thomas , 429 Mass . 403 ( 1999) . . . . . 4 n. 3

Commonweal t h v. Tr umbl e, 396 Mass . 81 ( 1985) . . . . 13 n. 4

Commonweal t h v. Upt on I I , 394 Mas s. 363 ( 1985) . . . 34- 35

Commonweal t h v. Val l e, 80 Mass. App. Ct . 1115

( 2011) [ Rul e 1: 28 Deci si on] 21, 24, 29, 47- 49

Commonweal t h v. Va Meng J oe, 40 Mass. App. Ct . 499

( 1996) 16

Kat z v. Uni t ed St at es, 389 U. S. 347 ( 1967) 13

Mapp v. Ohi o, 367 U. S. 643 ( 1961) 13

Mar yl and v. Wi l son, 519 U. S. 408 ( 1997) 36

Mi chi gan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032 ( 1983) 16

Penns yl vani a v. Mi mms , 434 U. S. 106 ( 1977) 16, 36

Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. 1 ( 1968) 13 n. 4, 15

Uni t ed St at es v. Lewi s , 816 F . Supp. 789

( D. Ma s s. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Whi t el ey v. War den, 401 U. S. 560 (1971) 23

G. L . c . 90, S i 24( 1) ( a) ( 1) 31, 40- 41

v


7/60

G. L. c. 94C, ~ 32C ( a) . 2, 41I

I

G. L. c. 94C, ~ 32L. . 9, 11, 20, 21, 24

27, 28, 29, 3537 n. 7, 38, 41- 43

G. L. c. 94C, ~ 34. . 2, 43- 45

G. L. c. 269, ~ 10( h) ( 1) . 2, 46

G. L. c. 276, ~ 2B. . 23, 46

Mass. Const . Pt . 1, ar t . Xl V 11, 14, 33, 36, 38, 39

U. S. Const . amend. I V 11, 33, 36, 38, 39

Memor andum f r om Depar t ment of J ust i ce Deput y At t or ney

Gener al Davi d W. Ogden on I nvest i gat i ons and

Pr osecut i ons i n St at es Aut hor i zi ng Medi cal Use of

Mar i j uana, t o Uni t ed St at es At t or neys

( Oct . 19, 2009) 37- 38, 50- 52

St at e Pol i ce Gener al Or der TRF- 15 13 n. 4

J oseph A. Gr ass o, J r . &Chr i st i ne M. McEvoy,

Suppr essi on Mat t er s Under Massachuset t s Law,

~ 1- 11 ( 2009- 2010 ed. ) 16- 17, 34- 35

vi


8/60

STATEMENT OF THE I SSUES

I . Whet her t he t r i al j udge c or r ec t l y s uppr es s ed t he

evi dence wher e t he t r ooper l acked per mi ssi bl e

gr ounds t o or der Mr . Cr aan out of hi s vehi cl e and

subsequent l y sear ch i t based onl y on: ( 1) t he

smel l of unbur ned mar i j uana comi ng f r om t he


of a s mal l quant i t y of mar i j uana i ns i de t he

vehi cl e.

I I . Whet her t he t r ooper l acked pr obabl e c aus e t o


i nf l uence of mar i j uana wher e Mr . Cr aan exhi bi t ed

no char act er i st i cs of i mpai r ment and t her e was no

evi dence of consumpt i on i n t he vehi cl e.

I I I . Whet her t he t r ooper c oul d s ear c h Mr . Cr aan' s

vehi cl e based on vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw wher e

t her e was no evi dence of a f eder al i nvest i gat i on

or pr osecut i on and Ar t i cl e 14 pr ovi des hei ght ened

pr ot ect i ons agai nst unl awf ul sear ch and sei zur e

as compar ed t o t he Four t h Amendment .

1


9/60


10/60

On May 12, 2011, Mr . Cr aan f i l ed a Mot i on f or

Rec ons i der at i on of J udge' s Deni al f or Def endant ' s

Mot i on t o Suppr ess and a Mot i on f or Rehear i ng and/ or

Re- Openi ng of Def endant ' s Mot i on t o Suppr ess i n l i ght

of Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass. 459 ( 2011) , whi ch

had r ec ent l y been dec i ded by t he Supr eme J udi c i al

Cour t and was di r ectl y appl i cabl e t o Mr . Cr aan' s case

( C. A. 5, 12, 13) .

On May 19, 2011, t her e was a hear i ng on Mr .

Cr aan' s mot i on f or r econsi der at i on ( C. A. 5) The

J udge t ol d t he pr osecut i on and Mr . Cr aan t hat she

want ed t o l i st en t o t he r ecor di ng of t he mot i on t o

suppr ess hear i ng hel d on Febr uar y 25, 2011 i n or der t o

r emi nd her s el f of t he f ac t s bef or e maki ng a dec i s i on

( Tr . 5/ 19/ 11: 34) .

On November 16, 2011, t he J udge s ai d t hat s he

made her f i nal deci si on al l owi ng Mr . Cr aan' s mot i on

f or r econsi der at i on and mot i on t o suppr ess on Octo ber

19, 2011 ( C.A. 6) ( Tr . 11/ 16/ 11: 10) 2

The docket not es t hat t he J udge i ni t i al l y al l owedMr . Cr aan' s mot i on t o r econs i der and s uppr es s on

Sept ember 7, 2011 ( C. A. 6) ( Tr . 9/ 7/ 11: 3) , however ,

t her e was conf usi on as t o whet her t he J udge made her

dec i s i on af t er gi vi ng t he pr os ec ut i on an oppor t uni t y

t o pr esent or al ar gument i n opposi t i on ( Tr . 10/ 19/ 11:3


11/60

The Commonwealth filed its brief on August 13,

2012.

STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS

A. Judge's Findings of Fact3

On June 11, 2010, Massachusetts State Police

Trooper Scott Irish (hereinafter "Trooper Irish") was

assigned to an OUI roadblock on Gallivan Boulevard in

Dorchester (Tr. 2/25/11: 11-12, 41) The roadblock

consisted of two lanes, with three troopers in each

8) . The Judge explained that she would listen to a

recording of the hearing to determine when she made

her final decision (Tr. 10/19/11: 8,9). Mr. Craan's

trial court counsel obj ected to the judge's decision

regarding the date the motion was actually allowed

arguing that the prosecution's notice of appeal was

not filed within the required time (Tr. 11/16/11: 10).

The judge made oral findings only and denied the

Commonwealth's request for written finings (C.A. 44-

50) (R.A. 23-24). "Appellate courts may supplement a

judge's findings of facts if the evidence is

uncontroverted and undisputed and where the judge

explicitly or implicitly credited the witness's

testimony." Commonwealthv. Isaiah 1., 448 Mass. 334,

337 (2007); citing Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass.

266, 268 n. 2 (1996). Further, '''motion judge's

findings of fact are binding in the absence of clear

error.'" Commonwealth v. Isaiah 1., 448 Mass. 334, 337

(2007); quoting, Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass.

403, 405 (1999).

4


12/60

1ane (Tr . 2/25/11: 25). Tr ooper I r i sh was f ul f i l l i ng

t he dut y of " s cr eeni ng of f i cer , " meani ng t hat he

st opped ever y vehi cl e at hi s checkpoi nt and made

cont act wi t h t he oper at or t o det er mi ne i f he/ she was

under t he i nf l uence of al cohol ( Tr . 2/25/11: 12, 41).

At ar ound 1:30 am, Mr . Cr aan appr oached t he OUI

r oadbl ock dr i vi ng a gr ay Mer cedes ( Tr . 2/25/11: 13,

41) . Tr ooper I r i s h made cont act wi t h Mr . Cr aan

t hr ough t he open dr i ver ' s si de wi ndow and smel l ed a

st r ong odor of unbur ned mar i j uana comi ng f r om wi t hi n

t he vehi cl e ( Tr . 2/25/11: 13, 25, 41). Tr ooper I r i sh

t hen di r ect ed Mr . Cr aan t o pul l hi s vehi cl e i nt o t he

scr eeni ng ar ea of f t o t he si de of t he r oad ( Tr .

2/25/11: 13-14, 41).

Tr ooper I r i sh spoke wi t h Mr . Cr aan agai n at t he

scr eeni ng ar ea and i nf or med hi m t hat he coul d smel l a

st r ong or der of mar i j uana i n t he vehi cl e ( Tr . 2/25/11:

14, 41). Tr ooper I r i sh t hen asked Mr . Cr aan i f he had

any mar i j uana I n t he vehi cl e ( Tr . 2/25/11: 15, 27,

41) . Mr . Cr aan r epl i ed "yes" and st at ed t hat he and

hi s passenger had j ust smoked some weed ( Tr . 2/25/11:

16, 41). However , Tr ooper I r i sh r ei t er at ed t hat he

5


13/60

di d not s mel l bur nt mar i j uana, but r at her f r es h,

unbur ned mar i j uana ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 16, 28, 42) Mr .

Cr aan t hen acknowl edged t hat he had some mar i j uana and

pr oceeded t o open t he passenger si de gl ove

compar t ment , exposi ng a smal l pl ast i c bag cont ai ni ng

what Tr ooper I r i sh bel i eved t o be mar i j uana ( Tr .

2/ 25/ 11: 17, 28, 42) Mr . Cr a an di d not r emove t he

pl ast i c bag f r om t he passenger si de gl ove compar t ment ,

r at her Tr ooper I r i sh was abl e t o see i t f r om hi s

vant age poi nt st andi ng out s i de t he vehi cl e at t he

dr i ver ' s s i de door ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 28, 42) I t was dar k

out s i de, so Tr ooper I r i sh used hi s f l ashl i ght t o

i l l umi nat e t he ar e a ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 29, 42) . Ther e wer e

al so gener at or - r un over head l i ght s set up at t he

checkpoi nt ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11 : 29, 42) . Tr ooper I r i s h

cl ai med t hat i t was a sandwi ch si zed- baggi e "maybe a

quar t er f ul l of mar i j uana, i f I r ecal l cor r ect l y" ( Tr .

2/ 25/ 11: 29) . Tr ooper I r i s h di d not know t he wei ght

of i t ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 29) .

Tr ooper I r i sh t hen r emoved Mr . Cr aan and t he

pas senger f r om t he vehi cl e t o per f or m a pat f r i s k Tr .

2/ 25/ 11: 17, 42) . He di d not f i nd any weapons or

6


14/60

contraband on either of their persons (Tr. 2/25/11:

17, 42).

Trooper Irish then proceeded to search the

passenger compartment of the vehicle (Tr. 2/25/11: 17-

18). He took possession of the small plastic bag from

the glove compartment that Mr. Craan had previously

showed him, and continued to search the interior of

the vehicle (Tr. 2/25/11: 18). Within the vehicle

Trooper Irish found several small baggies containing

marijuana, marijuana in the center console, three (3)

blue pills that he believed to be Ecstasy in the

center console, and a device commonly used for

grinding marijuana in the driver's side door (Tr.

2/25/11: 18-19, 31-32, 42). Trooper Irish claimed he

could still smell a strong odor or marijuana in the

vehicle, so he checked the trunk (Tr. 2/25/11: 32).

There was no marijuana in the trunk, however, Trooper

Irish found rounds of 0.38 caliber ammunition (Tr.

2/25/11: 18-19, 32-33).

Mr. Craan and the passenger were at the front of

the vehicle while the search was occurring (Tr.

2/25/11: 19-20). Trooper Irish asked them about the

7


15/60

mar i j uana, Ecst asy and ammuni t i on once he was f i ni shed

wi t h t he s ear c h ( T r . 2/ 25/ 11: 20) . Mr. Cr aan

acknowl edged t hat he smoked mar i j uana, but t hat he di d

not know wher e t he Ecst asy came f r om ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 21-

22, 43). Mr . Cr aan i ni t i al l y deni ed knowi ng wher e t he

ammuni t i on came f r om, but l at er acknowl edged t hat he

bel i eved t he ammuni t i on bel onged t o a secur i t y guar d

f r i end t o whom he had r ecent l y gi ven a r i de ( Tr .

2/ 25/ 11: 20, 43)

At t he end of t he i nt er ac t i on, Mr . Cr aan and t he

passenger wer e i ss ued summonses f or cr i mi nal of f enses

and sent on t hei r way ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 23) .

B. The J udge' s Rul i ng

Mr . Cr aan i ncor por at es by r ef er ence t he j udge' s

r ul i ng as set f or t h i n t he Commonweal t h' s Br i ef ( C. B.

6 - 8) .

8


16/60

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

I . Tr ooper I r i sh' s exi t or der and subsequent

war r ant l ess sear ch of Mr . Cr aan and hi s vehi cl e

vi ol at ed t he pr ot ect i ons pr ovi ded by t he Four t h

Amendment and Ar t i cl e 14. The onl y t wo f ac t or s

caus i ng Tr ooper I r i s h t o or der Mr . Cr aan and hi s

passenger out of t he vehi cl e and subsequent l y sear ch

i t wer e: 1) t he smel l of unbur ned mar i j uana al l egedl y

emanat i ng f r om t he vehi cl e, and; 2) t he s i ght of a

smal l baggi e cont ai ni ng what Tr ooper I r i sh bel i eved t o

be mar i j uana. Si nce t he enact ment of G. L. c. 94C, ~

32L and cases deci ded subsequent l y, t hese t wo f act or s

al one di d not pr ovi de Tr ooper I r i s h wi t h pr obabl e

cause or r easonabl e suspi ci on t hat a cr i mi nal amount

of mar i j uana was pr esent i n or der t o j ust i f y t he exi t

or der and sear ch. Addi t i onal l y, t her e wer e no ot her

per mi s s i bl e gr ounds f or t he exi t or der and s ear ch

because t her e wer e no f act or s showi ng t hat Mr . Cr aan

and/ or hi s passenger wer e engaged i n cr i mi nal act i vi t y

or pr es ent ed a danger t o t he t r ooper s or ot her s . See

pp. 12-30.

9


17/60

I I . Tr ooper I r i sh di d not have pr obabl e cause t o


i nf l uence of mar i j uana f or t hr ee r easons. Fi r s t , Mr .

Cr aan exhi bi t ed no c har ac t er i s t i c of i mpai r ment ( r ed,

gl as sy eyes , s l ur r e d s peec h) . Sec ond, t her e was no

evi dence of consumpt i on i n t he vehi cl e. Al t hough Mr .

Cr aan admi t t ed t o s moki ng weed ear l i er , t her e wer e no

f act s s howi ng t hat he cons umed i t i n t he vehi cl e or

speci f yi ng what "ear l i er " meant . Addi t i onal l y,

Tr ooper I r i sh was expl i ci t l y cl ear and adamant t hat he

smel l ed unbur ned mar i j uana as opposed t o bur nt

mar i j uana. Bur nt mar i j uana i s mor e l i kel y t o i ndi cat e

r ecent consumpt i on. Thi r d, al t hough t he st op occur r ed

at sobr i et y checkpoi nt , Tr ooper I r i s h el ect ed not t o

admi ni st er f i el d sobr i et y t est s t o Mr . Cr aan and

i ns t ead mer el y i s sued hi m a c r i mi nal s ummons f or

c har ges c ompl et el y unr e l at ed t o oper at i ng under t he

i nf l uence. See pp. 30- 33.

I I I . Tr ooper I r i sh coul d not sear ch Mr . Cr aan' s

vehi c l e bas ed on vi ol at i on of f eder a l l aw bec aus e i t

under mi nes t he power of t hi s St at e and i t s cour t s t o

10


18/60

enact l aws wi t h r egar d t o t he pos ses si on of s mal l

amount s of mar i j uana. Fi r s t , Ar t i cl e 14 pr ovi des

hei ght ened pr ot ec t i ons agai ns t unl awf ul s ear c h and

sei zur e compar ed t o t he Four t h Amendment as

i l l ust r at ed mor e r ecent l y by cases deci ded subsequent

t o G. L. c. 94C, ~ 32L. Second, Tr ooper I r i sh was

act i ng sol el y under t he di r ect i on of t he st at e,

wi t hout any f eder al i nvol vement , and t her e was no

Thi r d, t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce i ssued a

addr essi ng bet ween

i ndi cat i on

consi der ed.

memor andum

t hat a f eder al

t he

pr osecut i on

i nconsi st ency

was ever

f eder al l aw and st at e mar i j uana l aws, advi si ng f eder al

pr osecut or s t o not di r ect f eder al r esour ces on

i ndi vi dual s i n compl i ance wi t h exi st i ng st at e l aws.

See pp. 33- 38.

11


19/60

ARGUMENT

I . The t r i al j udge cor r ect l y suppr essed t he evi dence

because t he t r ooper l acked per mi ssi bl e gr ounds t o

or der Mr . Cr aan out of hi s vehi cl e and

s ubs equent l y s ear ch i t bas ed onl y on: ( 1) t he

smel l of unbur ned mar l ] Uana comi ng f r om t he


of a s mal l quant i t y of mar i j uana i ns i de t hevehi cl e.

A. Legal St andar d

Bot h t he Four t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es

Const i t ut i on ( her ei naf t er r ef er r ed t o as "Four t h

Amendment " ) and Ar t i cl e 14 of t he Mass achuset t s

Decl ar at i on of Ri ght s ( her ei naf t er r ef er r ed t o as

"Ar t i cl e 14") pr ot ect agai nst unr easonabl e sear ches

and sei zur es. See U. S. Const . amend. I V. and Mass.

Cons t . Pt . 1, ar t . XI V. "A sear ch of pr i vat e pr oper t y

must be bot h r easonabl e and pur suant t o a pr oper l y

i ssued sear ch war r ant . The mer e r easonabl eness of a

sear ch, as ses sed i n t he l i ght of t he s ur r oundi ng

c i r c ums t anc es , i s not a s ubs t i t ut e f or t he j udi c i al

war r ant r equi r ed under t he Four t h Amendment . " Ar kansas

v. Sander s , 442 U. S. 753, 758 (1979) " Sear ches

conduct ed out si de t he j udi ci al pr ocess, wi t hout pr i or

appr oval by j udge or magi st r at e,

12

ar e per se


20/60

unr easonabl e under t he Four t h Amendment subj ect onl y

t o a f ew speci f i cal l y wel l est abl i shed and del i neat ed

except i ons. / J Kat z v. Uni t ed St at es, 389 U. S. 347, 357

( 1967) . " Wher e a war r ant has not been obt ai n~d, t he

gover nment bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hat i t s sear ch

and s ei z ur e f al l s wi t hi n a r ec ogni z ed exc ept i on t o t he

war r ant r equi r ement . /J Uni t ed St at es v. Lewi s , 816 F.

Supp. 789, 792 (D. Mass. 1993) . "Al l evi dence

4

obt ai ned by s ear c hes and s ei z ur es i n vi ol at i on of t he

Const i t ut i on i s, by t hat same aut hor i t y, i nadmi ssi bl e

i n a s t at e cour t . / J Mapp v. Ohi o, 367 U. S. 643, 655

( 1961) .

Assumi ng, ar guendo, t hat Mr . Cr aan was val i dl y

s t opped as par t of a s obr i et y c hec kpoi nt 4, t he proper

The st op of a mot or vehi cl e at a f i xed r oadbl ockcons t i t ut es a war r ant l es s s ei z ur e of t hat vehi cl e and

dr i ver wi t hout i ndi vi dual i z ed s us pi ci on under t he

Four t h Amendment and Ar t i cl e 14. Commonweal t h v.

Mur phy, 454 Mass. 318, 322 ( 2009) ; ci t at i ons omi t t ed.

However , t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t has endor s ed

cer t ai n gui del i nes f or sobr i et y checkpoi nt pr ocedur es

so t hat t hey do not of f end t he guar ant ees of t he

Four t h Amendment and Ar t i cl e 14. See Commonweal t h v.

Tr umbl e, 396 Mass . 81, 82- 83 ( 1985) ; St at e Pol i ce

Gener al Or der TRF- 15. A dr i ver di r ect ed t o t he

secondar y scr eeni ng ar ea i n a sobr i et y checkpoi nt has

been s t opped i n ac cor danc e wi t h pr i nc i pl es s et f or t h

i n Ter r y v. Ohi o, under t he f ami l i ar st andar d of " r easonabl e suspi ci on. / J Commonweal t h v. Mur phy, 454

Mass. at 325.

13


21/60

anal ys i s i s whet her t he exi t or der and s ubs equent

war r ant l es s s ear c h wer e val i d based on ot her

per mi ssi bl e gr ounds.

Mass. 44, 48 ( 2011) .

See Commonweal t h v. J ohnson, 461

"Ar t i cl e 14 of t he Massachuset t s

Decl ar at i on of Ri ght s r ecogni zes t hr ee bases f or

i ssui ng an exi t or der t o a dr i ver or passenger i n a

r out i ne mot or vehi cl e st op: (1) part i cul ar i zed

r easonabl e suspi ci on of cr i mi nal act i vi t y; (2 )

r eas onabl e appr ehens i on of danger t o t he pol i ce or

ot her s ; or ( 3) ' pr agmat i c r eas ons . ' " Commonweal t h v.

Lobo, 82 Mass. App. Ct . 803, 808 ( 2012) ; ci t i ng

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass. 459, 466 ( 2011)

None of t hese j ust i f i cat i ons appl i ed when Tr ooper

I ri sh i ssued t he exi t or der t o Mr . Cr aan and

subsequent l y sear ched hi s vehi cl e. Ther ef or e, al l

evi denc e obt ai ned af t er t hi s i mpr oper exi t or der and

s ear c h mus t be s uppr es sed. See Commonweal t h v.

Loughl i n, 385 Mass. 60, 63 ( 1982) ( evi dence obt ai ned as

a r es ul t of uncons t i t ut i onal pol i ce conduct mus t be

excl uded

doct r i ne) .

under " f r ui t of

14

t he poi sonous tree"


22/60

B. The t r ooper di d not possess a

f ear f or hi s saf et y or t hat of

j ust i f y t he exi t or der and sear ch.

r easonabl e

ot her s t o

Not ever y c i r c ums t anc e t hat j us t i f i es a s t op al s o

j ust i f i es a f r i sk. Even a l i mi t ed sear ch f or weapons

i s a s er i ous i nt r us i on on t he s anct i t y of t he per s on.

See Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 u. S. I, 16- 17 ( 1968) ;

Commonweal t h v. Al mei da, 373 Mass. 266, 270- 271

( 1977) . The pur pos e of t he l i mi t ed Ter r y- t ype s ear c h

i s not i nves t i gat or y, but pr ot ect i ve. The pur pos e i s

not t o di s cover evi denc e of a c r i me, but t o al l ow t he

pol i ce t o pur s ue appr opr i at e i nves t i gat i on wi t hout

f ear of vi ol enc e. r d.

Once a suspect i s val i dl y st opped upon r easonabl e

s us pi ci on, an of f i cer may conduct a l i mi t ed Ter r y

s ear c h of t he s us pect f or weapons onl y i f t he of f i cer

r eas onabl y bel i eves t hat hi s s af et y or t hat of ot her s

i s i n danger . See Ter r y v. Ohi o, 392 U. S. at 27.

Accor di ngl y, " an exi t or der i s j ust i f i ed i f 'a

r easonabl y pr udent man i n t he pol i ceman' s posi t i on

woul d be war r ant ed i n t he bel i ef t hat t he s af et y of

t he pol i ce or t hat of ot her per s ons was i n danger . 11

15


23/60

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass at 466, quot i ng

Commonweal t h v. Gonsal ves, 429 Mass. 658, 661 ( 1999) .

The f ol l owi ng f act or s ar e consi der ed i n

det er mi ni ng whet her t he pol i ce of f i cer may conduct a

Ter r y- t ype sear ch: obser vat i on of a weapon [ Mi chi gan

v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1051 ( 1983) ; Commonweal t h v.

Al mei da, 373 Mas s . at 272] a bul ge i n t he c l ot hi ng of

t he suspect [ Pennsyl vani a v. Mi mms, 434 U. S. 106, 112

( 1977) ] ; a f ur t i ve ges t ur e [ Commonweal t h v. Va Meng

J oe, 40 Mas s. App. Ct . 499, 509- 511 ( 1996) ] ;

bel l i ger enc e or unr ul i nes s on t he par t of t he s us pec t

[ Commonweal th v . Ri ver a, 33 Mass. App. Ct . 311, 315

( 1992) ] ; i nf or mant s ' t i ps t hat an i ndi vi dual i s ar med

and danger ous [ Commonweal t h v. Fraser , 410 Mass. 541,

547 ( 1991) ] ; knowl edge of s us pect ' s r eput at i on f or

vi ol ence/ ki nds of cr i mes commi t t ed [ Commonweal t h v.

Ri ver a, 33 Mass. App. Ct . at 315] ; t i me of

day/ l ocat i on [ Commonweal t h v. Sumer l i n, 393 Mass. 127,

129 ( 1984) ( at ni ght , i s ol at ed ar e a) ] ; and whet her t he

of f i c er i s ' al one or out number ed

Ri ver a, 33 Mas s . App. Ct . at 315] .

[ Commonweal t h v.

I t s houl d be not ed

t hat one f act or by i t s el f i s r ar el y suf f i ci ent t o

16


24/60

s uppor t a pat - f r i s k. J os eph A. Gr as so, J r . &Chr i st i ne

M. McEvoy, Suppr essi on Mat t er s Under Massachuset t s

Law, ~ 1- 11 ( 2009- 2010 ed. ) ci t i ng Commonweal t h v.

Ri ver a, 33 Mass. App. Ct . at 314- 315.

None of t hes e f act or s wer e pr es ent i n t hi s cas e

t o j ust i f y t he sear ch. Nei t her Mr . Cr aan nor hi s

pas senger pr es ent ed any danger t o Tr ooper I r i s h or

ot her s at t he t i me of t he s t op. Tr ooper I r i s h di d not

obs er ve any weapons ei t her on Mr . Cr aan, hi s

pas s enger , or i ns i de t he vehi c l e. Mr . Cr aan and hi s

pas s enger di d not make any f ur t i ve ges t ur es . Tr ooper

I r i s h di d not have any i nf or mat i on t hat Mr . Cr a an or

hi s passenger was armed and danger ous. Tr ooper I r i s h

di d not know i f Mr . Cr aan or hi s pass enger had

r eput at i ons f or vi ol ence or cr i me.

The f act s show t hat Mr . Cr aan was st opped at a

sobr i et y checkpoi nt wi t h many st at e t r ooper s pr esent s.

Ther e wer e gener at or - r un over head l i ght s set up t o

i l l umi nat e t he ar ea ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 29, 42) . Mr . Cr aan

Tr ooper I r i sh di d notamount of t r ooper s pr esent ,

at t he i ni t i al s t op- poi nt

s ec ond was pr es ent whi l e

vehi cl e ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 17) ]

t est i f y as t o t he exactbut di d s ay t her e wer e s i x

( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 25) and a

he s ear c hed Mr . Cr aan' s

17


25/60

and hi s pas s enger wer e not bel l i ger ent or unr ul y

t owar ds any of t he t r ooper s . I n f act qui t e t he

opposi t e was t r ue: Mr . Cr aan f ol l owed Tr ooper I r i sh' s

i ns t r uc t i ons and ans wer ed hi s ques t i ons about t he

smel l of mar i j uana ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11; 13- 17) . At no poi nt

di d Tr ooper I r i sh t est i f y t hat he bel i eved t hat he was

i n f ear f or hi s saf et y or t hat ot her s wer e i n danger .

Addi t i onal l y, al t hough t he Commonweal t h does not

expl i ci t l y advance t he "saf et y" ar gument , t hey do

s t at e i n t hei r br i ef t hat Tr ooper I r i s h was j us t i f i ed

i n s ear c hi ng t he vehi cl e t o ens ur e t hat Mr . Cr aan

woul d not oper at e hi s mot or vehi c l e and i ngest

mar i j uana af t er t he st op ( C. B. 14) However , t hi s

ar gument t akes a t r emendous l eap i nt er pr et i ng t he

hol di ng of Cr uz and goes on an unnecessar y t angent

r egar di ng t he danger s of oper at i ng under t he i nf l uence

t hat ar e not r el evant t o t hi s case.

The Commonweal t h cl ai ms " Cr uz al so di d not hol d

t hat an of f i cer , conf r ont ed wi t h an aut omobi l e t hat

smel l s of f r esh, unbur ned mar i j uana, cannot sear ch

t hat car t o ensur e t hat , shoul d t he dr i ver be al l owed

t o go on [ hi s ] way, he does not have addi t i onal

18


26/60

mar i j uana" ( C. B. 22) Thi s gr eat l y mi schar act er i zes

Cr uz. At i t s cor e, Cr uz s t ands f or t he pr opos i t i on

t hat t he odor of bur nt mar i j uana, wi t hout mor e, does

not j ust i f y an exi t or der and subsequent sear ch. See

Commonweal t h v. Lobo, 82 Mass. App. Ct . at 808i

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 450 Mass at 460.

Her e, Tr ooper I r i sh di d not r easonabl y bel i eve

t hat Mr . Cr aan or hi s passenger pr esent ed a danger t o

t he t r ooper s or ot her s . Ther e was no evi dence of

mar i j uana consumpt i on l n t he vehi cl e or i mpai r ed

oper at i on. Tr ooper I r i sh di d not even admi ni st er

f i el d s obr i et y t es t s des pi t e t he s t op occur r i ng at a

sobr i et y checkpoi nt . As s uch, t he exi t or der and

sear ch of t he occupant s and t he vehi cl e wer e unl awf ul .

Any evi dence obt ai ned as a r esul t of t hi s sear ch must

be suppr essed as a mat t er of l aw. See Commonweal t h v.

Si l va, 366 Mass. 402, 405- 406 ( 1974)

C. The t r ooper di dsuspi ci on based onbel i eve t hat Mr .cr i mi nal act i vi t y.

not have r eas onabl ear t i cul abl e f act s t o

Cr aan was engaged i n

An exi t or der i s al s o j us t i f i ed i f " t he of f i cer s

coul d have devel oped r easonabl e suspi ci on ( based on

ar t i cul abl e f act s) t hat t he def endant was engaged i n

19


27/60

cri mi nal act i vi t y . . . /I Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass

at 466, ci t i ng Commonweal t h v. Bost ock, 450 Mass. 616,

621 ( 2008) . " A mer e hunc h i s not enough . . . t he t es t

i s an obj ect i ve one. / I Commonweal t h v. Si l va, 366 Mass.

at 406. " Si mpl e good f ai t h on t he par t of t he of f i cer

i s not enough. / I Commonweal t h v. Bacon, 381 Mass. 642,

643 ( 1980)

Fur t her , t he " l esser st andard of r easonabl e

suspi ci on i s t i ed, by i t s ver y def i ni t i on, t o t he

suspi ci on of cr i mi nal , as opposed t o mer el y

i nf r act i onar y, conduct . / I Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459

Mass. at 469, ci t i ng Commonweal t h v. Si l va, 366 Mass.

at 405. "When t he peopl e of t hi s Commonweal t h

ans wer ed ' yes ' t o Ques t i on 2 on t he 2008 bal l ot , t he

of f ens e of pos ses si ng one ounc e or l es s of mar i j uana

changed f r om bei ng a cr i mi nal t o a ci vi l of f ense. /I

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass. at 470. " Ar t i cul abl e

f ac t s , t hen, mus t demons t r at e t hat t he def endant

pos s es s ed mor e t han one ounc e of mar i j uana, bec aus e

pos ses si on of one ounce or l es s of mar i j uana i s not a

cr i me. / I Commonweal t h v. Cr uz , 459 Mas s . at 469;

ci t i ng G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32L.

20


28/60

Thi s cas e f al l s di r ect l y i n l i ne wi t h t he hol di ng

i n Cr uz and t hose deci ded af t er t he enact ment of G. L.

Mass. App. Ct .

See Commonweal t h v.c. 94C, 32L.

803 ( 2012) ( i nval i d exi t

Lobo,

or der

82

and

s ubs equent s ear c h bas ed on odor of f r es hl y bur nt

mar i j uana comi ng f r om i nsi de vehi cl e) ; Commonweal t h v.

Damon, 82 Mass . App. Ct . 164 ( 2012) ( same) ; Commonweal t h

v. Val l e, 80 Mass. App. Ct . 1115 ( 2011) [ Rul e 1: 28

Deci si on; see A. A. 47] ( smel l of mar i j uana comi ng f r om

vehi cl e i s not enough t o war r ant exi t or der and

sear ch) .

I n t hi s cas e, at t he t i me Tr ooper I r i s h or der ed

Mr . Cr aan and hi s passenger out of t he vehi cl e, t her e

was no evi dence t hat Mr . Cr aan possessed a cr i mi nal

amount mar i j uana or t hat he was engaged i n any ot her

cr i mi nal act i vi t y. Mr . Cr aan was st opped as par t of a

s obr i et y checkpoi nt ; he di d not commi t a t r af f i c

vi ol at i on or some ot her of f ense war r ant i ng t he st op.

Ther e was no evi dence of mar i j uana consumpt i on i n t he

vehi cl e or i mpai r ed oper at i on by Mr . Cr aan. Tr ooper

I r i s h di d not r eques t t hat Mr . Cr aan per f or m f i el d

s obr i et y t es t s . I n f act , Tr ooper I r i sh was adamant

21


29/60

t hat he smel l ed unbur ned mar i j uana as opposed t o bur nt

mar i j uana, whi ch coul d i ndi cat e r ecent use ( T r .

2/ 25/ 13: 13) The exi t or der and s ubs equent s ear c h

wer e bas ed on t he s mel l of mar i j uana emanat i ng f r om

t he vehi cl e and t he si ght of a smal l baggi e cont ai ni ng

what Tr ooper I r i sh bel i eved t o be mar i j uana ( Tr .

2/ 25/ 11; 17) Tr ooper I r i s h hi ms el f des cr i bed t he bag

as " s mal l " ( Tr 2/ 25/ 11; 17) .

wei ght of i t ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 29) .

He di d not know t he

These f act or s ar e not enough t o war r ant t he exi t

or der and subsequent sear ch. Qui t e si mpl y, t her e wer e

no f act or s i ndi cat i ng c r i mi nal ac t i vi t y by Mr . Cr a an

or hi s passenger .

D. The t r ooper di d not have pr obabl e cause t o

s ear c h t he vehi cl e under t he aut omobi l e

exc ept i on becaus e t her e was i ns uf f i c i entevi dence t hat i t cont ai ned a cr i mi nal amount

of mar i j uana.

Thi s i s al so not t he cas e wher e " t he of f i cer s

coul d have or der ed t he def endant out of t he car f or

pr agmat i c r easons, e.g. , t o f aci l i t at e an

i ndependent l y per mi s s i bl e war r ant l es s s ear c h of t he

car under t he aut omobi l e except i on t o t he war r ant

r equi r ement . " Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass. at 467,

22


30/60

ci t i ng Commonweal t h v. Cast , 407 Mass. 891, 901

( 1990) . " Under t he aut omobi l e except i on, a

war r ant l ess sear ch of an aut omobi l e i s per mi t t ed when

t he pol i ce have ' pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve t hat a

mot or vehi c l e on a publ i c way c ont ai ns c ont r aband or

evi denc e of a c r i me, and exi gent c i r c ums t anc es make

obt ai ni ng a war r ant i mpr act i cabl e. ' " r d. at 473- 474.

The " pr obabl e cause" st andar d of t he aut omobi l e

exc ept i on i s l es ser t han t he " r eas onabl e s us pi c i on"

s t andar d needed t o s uppor t an exi t or der . r d. i see

al so Commonweal t h v. Hason, 387 Mass. 169, 174 ( 1982)

( "Probabl e cause r equi r es mor e t han mer e suspi ci on but

s omet hi ng l es s t han evi dence s uf f i c i ent t o war r ant a

convi ct i on" ) .

Addi t i onal l y, " [ t ] he s t andar d us ed t o det er mi ne

t he val i di t y of a war r ant l es s s ear c h i s t he s ame as

t hat used by a magi st r at e i n consi der i ng t he

appl i cat i on f or a s ear c h war r ant . Commonweal t h v.

Cr uz, 459 Mass. at 475, ci t i ng Whi t el ey v. War den, 401

U.s. 560, 566 ( 1971) . " [ S] eac h war r ant s ar e i s sued by

magi s t r at es ' aut hor i z ed t o i s sue [ t hem] i n c r i mi nal

cases' ' ' . r d. at 475, quot i ng G. L. c. 276, ~ 2B.

23

As


31/60

not ed above, possessi on of one ounce or l ess of

mar i j uana was changed f r om a cr i mi nal of f ens e t o a

c i vi l one. See Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mas s . at

470; G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32L. Accor di ngl y, i n or der " t o

under t ake a sear c h pur s uant t o t he mot or vehi cl e

except i on, t he pol i ce must have pr obabl e cause t o

bel i eve t hat a criminal amount of cont r aband i s

pr esent , not mer el y some l esser amount .H Commonweal t h

v. Dani el , 81 Mas s. App. Ct . 306, 311 ( 2012) , ci t i ng

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz , 459 Mas s . at 476. " I t i s

unr eas onabl e f or t he pol i c e t o s pend t i me c onduc t i ng

war r ant l es s s ear ches f or cont r a band when no s peci f i c

f act s suggest cr i mi nal i t y. H

Mass. at 477.

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459

As not ed above i n Cr uz and ot her cas es deci ded

af t er t he enact ment of G. L. c. 94C, ~ 32L, " t he odor

of f r es hl y bur nt mar i j uana, wi t hout mor e , no l onger

pr ovi des pr obabl e cause, or even r easonabl e suspi ci on,

t hat a cr i mi nal amount of mar i j uana i s pr es ent .H

Commonweal t h v. Lobo, 82 Mass. App. Ct . at 808; See al so

Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass. 459; Commonweal t h v.

24


32/60

Damon, 82 Mass. App. Ct . 164; Commonweal t h v. Val l e, 80

Mass. App. Ct . 1115 [ Rul e 1: 28 Deci si on; see A. A. 47] .

Cont r ast , Commonweal t h v. Dani el , 81 Mass. App. Ct .

306( pol i ce had pr obabl e cause t o sear ch t he

def endant ' s vehi cl e under t he aut omobi l e except i on) .

I n Dani el , i n addi t i on t o t he of f i cer s mel l i ng bur nt

mar i j uana, t he def endant ' s admi ssi on t o smoki ng

mar i j uana and showi ng t he of f i cer t wo smal l baggi es of

mar i j uana, there wer e ot her f act or s suggest i ng

cr i mi nal i t y, speci f i cal l y: br oken headl i ght ; t he

def endant made a l ef t t ur n i n f r o nt of pol i c e c r ui s er

wi t hout us i ng her di r ec t i onal ; t he def endant s t opped

her vehi c l e abr upt l y i n t he mi ddl e of a one- l ane r oad

caus i ng t he pol i ce cr ui s er t o near l y r ear - ended her

and bl ocki ng t r af f i c; f ur t i ve gest ur es by t he

pass enger . I d. at 308.

Mr . Cr a an' s cas e mor e cl os el y f ol l ows t he f ac t s

i n Cr uz and ot her s , wher e t he s ear ch was i nval i d. Mr .

Cr aan was s t opped at a s obr i et y c hec kpoi nt ; he di d not

commi t a t r af f i c vi ol at i on ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11; 13) . Mr .

Cr aan compl i ed wi t h Tr ooper I r i sh' s quest i ons

t hr oughout t he s t op. He f ol l owed Tr ooper I r i s h' s

25


33/60

di r ect i ons t o t he second scr eeni ng ar ea and

subsequent l y answer ed hi s quest i ons about t he smel l of

mar i j uana ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11; 13- 17) . Mr . Cr aan went s o f ar

as t o show a smal l pl ast i c bag f r om t he gl ove

compar t ment t hat Tr ooper I r i s h bel i eved t o be

mar i j uana ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11; 17) . Tr ooper I r i s h hi ms el f

des cr i bed t he bag a " s mal l " ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11; 17) . He di d

not know t he wei ght of i t ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 29) . I n

addi t i onr t her e was no evi dence of i mpai r ed dr i vi ng or

mar i j uana consumpt i on i n t he vehi cl e.

The onl y t wo f act or s causi ng Tr ooper I r i sh t o

or der Mr . Cr a an and hi s pas senger out of t he vehi cl e

and subsequent l y sear ch i t wer e: 1) t he smel l of

mar i j uana emanat i ng

smal l baggi e

unbur ned

vehi cl er

and; 2)

al l egedl y

t he si ght of a

f r om t he

cont ai ni ng what Tr ooper I r i sh bel i eved t o be mar i j uana

(Tr . 2 / 2 5/ 11 ; 17) . Thes e t wo f act or s al one di d not

pr ovi de t he pol i ce wi t h pr obabl e caus e t o execut e a

war r ant l es s s ear c h bec aus e t hey di d not i ndi c at e t hat

t he vehi c l e cont ai ned a criminal amount of mar i j uana

or t hat Mr . Cr aan and hi s passenger wer e engaged some

26


34/60

ot her c r i mi nal ac t i vi t y.

459 Mass. at 476.

See Commonweal t h v. Cr uz,

E. The Ar t i cl e 14 pr ot ect i ons pr onounced i n

Cr uz appl y r egar dl es s of whet her t he s mel lof mar i j uana i s bur nt or unbur ned.

" I n Commonweal t h v. Cr uz , t he c our t announc ed

t hat t he mar i j uana decri mi nal i zat i on l aw changed our

j ur i spr udence, and t he odor of f r eshl y bur nt

mar i j uana, wi t hout mor e, no l onger pr ovi des pr obabl e

c aus e, or even r eas onabl e s us pi c i on, t hat a c r i mi nal

amount of mar i j uana i s pr es ent . "

Lobo, 82 Mass. App. Ct . at 808.

Commonweal t h v.

The Commonweal t h ar gues t hat there i s a

di st i nct i on bet ween unbur ned mar i j uana and bur nt

mar i j uana when eval uat i ng t he val i di t y of a

sear ch6( C. B. 22) Speci f i cal l y, t he Commonweal t h

ar gues t hat Cr uz does not al t er t he c our t ' s hol di ng i n

Commonweal t h v. Gar den, 451 Mass. 43 ( 2008) , t hat an

of f i c er ' s det ec t i on of unbur ned mar i j uana emanat i ng

f r om a c ar pr ovi des pr o babl e c aus e t o bel i eve t hat t he

car cont ai ns mor e mar i j uana ( C. B. 22) However , t hi s

For pur pos es of

mar i j uana" s hal l be

mar i j uana, or mar i j uana

cl ar i t y, t he t er m " unbur ned"

s ynonYmous wi t h r aw or f r es h

t hat has not been smoked

27


35/60

argument misses the mark and fails to consider the

full impact of G.L. c; 94C, ~ 32L.

Commonwealth v. Garden was decided on April 1,

2008, before the enactment of G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32L.

Garden itself involved the smell of burnt marijuana

emanating from the clothing of the occupants of the

motor vehicle and the permissible scope of a valid

search. Commonwealth v. Garden, 451 Mass. at 43, 45.

The court repeatedly refers to the smell of marijuana

on multiple occasions without designating it as

"unburned" or "burnt". rd. at 48-50. The court did

so in evaluating the permissible scope of the search:

specifically, whether the officer in Garden was

justified in searching the trunk of the vehicle when

he smelled only burnt marij uana. The Garden court

decided that the search could not extend to the trunk

because the officer could not reasonably expect to

find burnt marijuana there. rd. at 52.

However, while Garden deals with the scope of a

valid search prior to G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32L, Cruz

addresses the validity of the search itself after G.L.

c. 94C, ~ 32L. The enactment G.L. c. 94C, ~ 32L

28


36/60

changed t he l aw i n t he Commonweal t h wi t h r egar d t o

mar i j uana, changi ng t he st at us of possessi ng one ounce

or l ess of mar i j uana f r om a cr i me t o a ci vi l

i nf r act i on. See G. L. c. 94C, ~ 32L. As des cr i bed

above, cases deci ded subsequent l y have r epeat edl y

f ound t hat t her e mus t be s ome addi t i onal f act or s

i ndi cat i ng cr i mi nal i t y or t hat a cr i mi nal amount of

mar i j uana i s pr es ent l n or der t o val i dat e t he exi t

or der and sear ch. See Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass .

Commonweal t h v.459;

Commonweal t h v.

Lobo,

Damon, 82

82 Mass. App. Ct .

Mass. App. Ct .

803;

164;

Commonweal t h v. Val l e, 80 Mass . App. Ct . 1115 [ Rul e 1: 28

Deci si on; see A. A. 47]

I n Commonweal t h v. Val l e, t hi s Cour t di d not

desi gnat e bur nt ver sus unbur ned mar i j uana and i nst ead

st at ed: "[ i ] n t he wake of Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, i t i s

no l onger enough t han an of f i cer smel l s mar i j uana

comi ng f r om a vehi cl e, even when coupl ed wi t h a

def endant ' s admi ss i on of smoki ng mar i j uana. To

j ust i f y t he sear ch of an aut omobi l e, t he of f i cer s must

have ot her evi dence of cr i mi nal act i vi t y or of t he

exi st ence of a cr i mi nal

29

amount of cont r aband. "


37/60

Commonweal t h v. Val l e, 80 Mass. App. Ct . 1115, 2 [ Rul e

1: 28 Deci si on; see A. A. 47]

I n t hi s case, t he onl y t wo f act or s causi ng

Tr ooper I r i sh t o or der Mr . Cr aan and hi s passenger out

of t he vehi c l e and s ubs equent l y s ear c h i t wer e : 1) t he

smel l of unbur ned mar i j uana emanat i ng f r om t he

vehi cl e, and; 2) t he si ght of a smal l baggi e

cont ai ni ng what Tr ooper I r i sh bel i eved t o be mar i j uana

(Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 17) . Thes e t wo f ac t or s al one di d not

pr ovi de t he pol i ce wi t h pr obabl e caus e t o execut e a

war r ant l es s s ear c h bec aus e t hey di d not i ndi c at e t hat

a criminal amount of mar i j uana was pr esent or t hat Mr .

Cr aan and hi s passenger wer e engaged i n ot her cr i mi nal

act i vi t y. See Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass. at 476.

I I . The t r ooper di d not have pr obabl e cause t o


i nf l uenc e of mar i j uana bec aus e he exhi bi t ed no

c har act er i s t i c s of i mpai r ment and t her e was no

evi dence of consumpt i on i n t he vehi cl e.

The Commonweal t h ar gues t hat Tr ooper I r i sh coul d

have ar r es t ed Mr . Cr aan f or oper at i ng a mot or vehi c l e

under t he i nf l uenc e of mar i j uana, t her eby j us t i f yi ng

30


38/60

the subsequent search (C.B. 12-13). However, there is

no support for this argument in the record.

For an arrest to be constitutionally valid there

must be probable cause to make the arrest. Beck v.

Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). To support an arrest

for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of

drugs, in violation of G.L. c. 90, ~ 24(1) (a) (1), the

facts and circumstances known to the officer at the

time must show that: (1) the defendant "operate [d] a

motor vehicle"; (2) "upon any way or in any place to

which the public has a right of access, or upon any

way or in any place to which members of the public

have access as invitees or licensees"; and (3) did so

"while under the influence of marijuana,

narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances,

all as defined in section one of chapter ninety-four

C." G.L. c. 90, ~ 24 (1) (a) (1).

In its brief, the Commonwealth lists a litany of

cases describing circumstances where there was

probable cause to make an arrest for operating under

the influence. See Commonwealth v. O'Connor, 420

Mass. 630 (1995) (defendant admitted to drinking and

31


39/60

had r ed- gl assy eyes) i Commonweal t h v. Rovi ar o, 32

Mas s. App. Ct . 956 (1992) ( def endant admi t t i ng t o

dr i nki ng f i ve or si x beer s i mmedi at el y pr i or t o mot or

vehi cl e acci dent ) i Commonweal t h v. Ri vet , 30 Mass.

App. Ct . 973 ( 1991) ( smel l of al cohol , def endant

admi t t ed consumi ng al cohol and had gl ass eyes) . I n

al l of t hese cases, t her e wer e mul t i pl e f act or s - r ed,

gl assy eyes, admi ss i on of consumpt i on, odor of al cohol

l eadi ng t he of f i cer t o bel i eve t he dr i ver was

oper at i ng under t he i nf l uence.

However , her e, t he r ecor d i s compl et el y voi d of

evi dence t hat Mr . Cr aan consumed mar i j uana i n t he

vehi cl e or oper at ed under t he i nf l uence of mar i j uana.

Tr ooper I r i sh di d not descr i be any physi cal

char act er i st i cs i ndi cat i ng t hat Mr . Cr aan was i mpai r ed

( i . e. r ed, gl assy eyes, sl ur r ed speech) . Ther e was no

t est i mony showi ng t hat Mr . Cr aan and/ or hi s passenger

had s moked i n t he vehi c l e. Al t hough Mr . Cr aan

admi t t ed t o smoki ng weed ear l i er , Tr ooper I r i sh was

expl i ci t l y cl ear t hat he di d not smel l bur nt mar i j uana

whi ch coul d i ndi cat e consumpt i on i n t he vehi cl e ( Tr .

2/ 25/ 11: 13) . He r ei t er at ed

32

t hi s on mul t i pl e


40/60

occasi ons ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 14, 16) Tr ooper I r i sh had

ever y oppor t uni t y t o admi ni st er f i el d sobr i et y t est s

or f ol l ow up on Mr . Cr aan' s mar i j uana use and hi s

l evel of i mpai r ment , but he di d not . I r oni cal l y, t he

s t op occur r ed at a s obr i et y checkpoi nt , yet Tr ooper

I r i sh mer el y i ssued Mr . Cr aan a cr i mi nal summons f or

char ges compl et el y unr el at ed t o oper at i ng under t he

i nf l uence and sent hi m on hi s way ( Tr . 2/ 25/ 11: 23)

Qui t e si mpl y, at t he t i me of t he i nci dent , t her e

was no evi dence suppor t i ng t he not i on t hat Mr . Cr aan

was oper at i ng hi s mot or vehi cl e under t he i nf l uence of

mar i j uana.

I I I . The t r ooper coul d not sear ch Mr . Cr aan' s vehi cl ebased on vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw because t her e

was no evi dence of a f eder al i nvest i gat i on orpr osecut i on and Ar t i cl e 14 pr ovi des hei ght enedpr ot ect i ons agai nst unl awf ul sear ch and sei zur eas compar ed t o t he Four t h Amendment .

The Commonweal t h ar gues t hat t he sear ch was

per mi ss i bl e under t he aut omobi l e except i on because Mr .

Cr aan had mar i j uana i n hi s vehi cl e i n vi ol at i on of

f eder al l aw ( C. B. 23) . However , t hi s ar gument mi ss es

t he mar k because i t does not gr asp t he i mpact of t he

33


41/60

Cr uz dec i s i on and t he di s t i nc t i ons bet ween t he Four t h

Amendment and Ar t i cl e 14.

I n Commonweal t h v. Upt on I I , t he Cour t eval uat ed

t he pr obabl e caus e s t andar d f or pur pos es of i s sui ng a

s ear c h war r a nt and dec i ded t hat Ar t i cl e 14 pr ovi ded

mor e s ubs t ant i ve pr ot ect i on t o def endant s t han does

t he Four t h Amendment . J os eph A. Gr as so, Jr. &

Chr i s t i ne M. Mc Evoy, Suppr ess i on Mat t er s Under

Massachuset t s Law, ~ 1- 11 ( 2009- 2010 ed. ) i ci t i ng

Commonweal t h v. Upt on I I , 394 Mas s. 363, 373- 374

(1985) . " Upt on II i s s i gni f i c ant because it

det er mi ned f or t he f i r s t t i me t hat i n addi t i on t o t he

r equi r ement s of t he Four t h Amendment , whi ch must be

obs er ved by t he s t at es as par t of Four t h Amendment due

pr o ces s, Ar t i cl e 14 of t he Mas sac hus et t s Dec l ar a t i on

of Ri ght s pr ovi des s epar at e, addi t i onal , and di s t i nc t

sour ce of i ndi vi dual r i ght s, whi ch must be consi der ed

i n ever y i ns t ance of s ear ch and s ei z ur e. " J oseph A.

Gr asso, ' J r . &Chr i st i ne M. McEvoy, Suppr essi on Mat t er s

Under Massachuset t s Law, ~ 1- 11 ( 2009- 2010 ed. ) . "The

ef f ect of Upt on I I i s t hat i n Mas sachus et t s, t he s t at e

i s pr ohi bi t ed f r om us i ng as evi denc e i t ems i l l egal l y

34


42/60

sei zed under f eder al const i t ut i on st andar ds, and i t ems

s ei z ed i l l egal l y under s t at e s t andar ds ( t o t he ext ent

t hat t he s t at e may i mpos e a hi gher s t andar d) " I d.

As not ed above, " a war r ant l ess sear ch of an

aut omobi l e i s per mi t t ed when t he pol i ce have ' pr obabl e

c aus e t o bel i eve t hat a mot or vehi c l e on a publ i c way

cont ai ns cont r aband or evi dence of a cr i me, and

exi gent ci r cumst ances make obt ai ni ng a war r ant

i mpr act i cabl e. ' " Commonweal t h v. Cr uz [ 459 Mass. at

473- 474; ci t at i ons omi t t ed. I n Cr uz , t he Cour t

anal yzed how t he enact ment of G. L. c. 94C[ ~ 32L

i mpac t ed t he Four t h Amendment and Ar t i cl e 14. The

pas sage of G. L. c. 94C[ ~ 32L di d not l egal i ze

mar i j uana. " [ P] ossessi on of mar i j uana i n any amount

r emai ns i l l egal ; decr i mi nal i zat i on i s not synonymous

wi t h l egal i zat i on. " Commonweal t h v. Cr uz, 459 Mass.

at 473. " Bec aus e mar i j uana r emai ns unl awf ul t o

possess, any amount of mar i j uana i s consi der ed

cont r aband. " I d. However [ " [ i ] t i s unr eas onabl e f or

t he pol i ce t o spend t i me conduct i ng war r ant l ess

sear ches f or cont r aband when no speci f i c f act s suggest

c r i mi nal i t y. " I d. at 477.

35


43/60

At i t s cor e, Cr uz s t ands f or t he pr opos i t i on t hat

t he odor of bur nt mar i j uana al one does not j us t i f y an

exi t or der and subsequent sear ch. See Commonweal t hv.

Cr uz, 450 Mass at 460. Subsequent t o Cr uz, t hi s Cour t

has f ur t her emphas i z ed t hat Ar t i cl e 14 pr ovi des

hei ght ened pr ot ec t i ons agai ns t unl awf ul s ear c h and

s ei z ur e as compar ed t o t he Four t h Amendment . See

Commonweal t h v. Lobo, 82 Mass. App. Ct . at 808i compar e

Pennsl yvani a v. Mi mms, 434 U.S. at 109- 110 ( under

Four t h Amendment , of f i c er s may i s sue exi t or der t o

dr i ver of s t opped mot or vehi c l e as r out i ne pr ac t i c e) i

Mar yl and v. Wi l son, 519 U. S. 408, 414- 415 ( 1997) ( same

appl i es t o passenger s) .

The Commonweal t h' s ar gument t hat a t r ooper can

vi ol at e pr ot ect i ons pr ovi ded by Ar t i cl e 14 under t he

gui se of a f eder al l aw vi ol at i on i s absur d. The

Commonweal t h suggest s t hat Tr ooper I r i sh, act i ng

s ol el y under t he di r ect i on of t he s t at e, at a s obr i et y

checkpoi nt , without any federal involvement, was

empower ed t o di s r egar d s t at e l aw and i nves t i gat e a

f eder al cr i me. At no poi nt i n t hi s c as e was Tr o oper

I r i sh i nvol ved i n a f eder al dr ug i nvest i gat i on.

36

At no


44/60

poi nt di d Tr ooper I r i s h ever t es t i f y t hat he pr oc eeded

t o s ear c h bas ed on a vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw. Ther e

lS no i ndi c at i on t hat a f eder al pr os ec ut i on was ever

consi der ed. Thi s ar gument compl et el y under mi nes t he

St at e' s power t o enac t l aws gover ni ng i t s c i t i z ens and

t he Supr eme J udi c i al Cour t ' s power t o i nt er pr et s uch

l aws t o pr ot ec t i t s ci t i z ens .

Fur t her , t he i ncons i s t ency bet ween states

enact i ng new l aws r egar di ng mar i j uana ( i . e. medi cal

us e, dec r i mi nal i z at i on, et c . ) and f eder al l aw maki ng

possessi on of mar i j uana i n any amount i l l egal has not

been i gnored by t he f eder al government . ? See Memorandum

f r om Depar t ment of J us t i ce Deput y At t or ney Gener al

Davi d W. Ogden on I nves t i gat i ons and Pr os ec ut i ons i n

St at es Aut hor i zi ng Medi cal Use of Mar i j uana, t o Uni t ed

St at es At t or neys ( Oc t . 19, 2009) ( her ei naf t er r ef er r e d

t o as " DOJ Memo" ) ( A. A. 50) The DOJ Memo pr ovi des

gui danc e as t o how f eder a l pr os ecut or s ar e advi s ed t o

appr oach i nves t i gat i ons and pr os ecut i ons i n s t at es

wi t h mar i j uana l aws. Feder al pr osecut i ons ar e advi sed

7 Al t hough Massachuset t s

" medi cal mar i j uana" cat egor y

& 32L had been enact ed.

37

di d not f al l i nt o

at t he t i me, G.L. c.

t he

94C,


45/60

t o f ocus t hei r at t ent i on on s i gni f i cant t r af f i cki ng

net wor ks and not di r ect f eder al r esour ces on

i ndi vi dual s whos e act i ons ar e i n compl i ance wi t h

exi s t i ng s t at e l aws . See r d.

Ther e was no f eder al i nvol vement i n t hi s cas e.

The ci t i zens of t hi s Commonweal t h voi ced t hei r opi ni on

wi t h r egar d t o t he pos ses si on of one ounce or l es s of

mar i j uana and t he St at e r es ponded. See G. L . c . 94C, ~

32L. The Supr eme J udi c i al Cour t has s ubs equent l y

i nt er pr et ed t he i mpact of G. L. c. ~ 32L on

Ar t i cl e 14 and r ei t er at ed t hat i t pr ovi des a hi gher

s t andar d of pr ot ect i on agai ns t unl awf ul s ear c h and

s ei z ur e as compar ed t o t he Four t h Amendment . See

Commonweal t h v. Lobo, 82 Mass. App. Ct . at 808. State

l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s al one cannot now under mi ne

t he power of t he st at e and i t s cour t s t o enact and

i nt er pr e t l aws wi t h r egar d t o t he pos ses si on of s mal l

amount s of mar i j uana under t he gui s e of a f eder al l aw

vi ol at i on.

38


46/60

CONCLUSI ON

WHEREFORE! f or t he f oregoi ng r easons! t he

def endant / appel l ee! Ant hony Cr aan! r espect f ul l y

r eques t s t hat t hi s Honor abl e Cour t af f i r m t he deci s i on

of J udge Mi l l er i n al l owi ng hi s mot i on t o suppr ess.

Respect f ul l y Submi t t ed!

ANTHONY CRAAN!

def endant / appel l ee!

By hi s at t or ney!

~:i~ -----BRI AN J . ANDERSON / 670871

Cont ant Law Of f i ces! P. C.

141 Tr emont St r eet ! 4t h Fl oorBost on! MA 02111

( 617) 227- 8383

br i an@cont ant - l aw. com

39
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


47/60

ADDENDUM

The Four t h Amendment t o t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t edSt at es pr ovi des:

The r i ght of t he peopl e t o be secur e i n t hei r per sons,

hous es , paper s , and ef f ec t s , agai ns t unr eas onabl esear ches and sei zur es, shal l not be vi ol at ed, and noWar r ant s s hal l i s sue, but upon pr obabl e caus e,s uppor t ed by Oat h or af f i r mat i on, and par t i c ul ar l ydescri bi ng t he pl ace t o be sear ched, and t he per sonsor t hi ngs t o be sei zed.

Ar t i cl e XI V of t he Massachuset t s Decl ar at i on of Ri ght spr ovi des:

Ever y subj ect has a r i ght t o be secur e f r om al lunr easonabl e sear ches, and sei zur es, of hi s per son,hi s houses, hi s paper s, and al l hi s possessi ons. Al lwar r ant s , t her ef or e, ar e cont r ar y t o t hi s r i ght , i f t he caus e or f oundat i on of t hem be not pr evi ous l ys uppor t ed by oat h or af f i r mat i on; and i f t he or der i nt he war r ant t o a ci vi l of f i cer , t o make sear ch i nsuspect ed pl aces, or t o ar r est one or mor e suspect edper sons, or t o sei ze t hei r pr oper t y, be notaccompani ed wi t h a speci al desi gnat i on of t he per sons

or obj ect s of sear ch, ar r est , or sei zur e: and nowar r ant ought t o be i ssued but i n cases, and wi t h t hef or mal i t i es pr escr i bed by t he l aws.

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws Chapt er 90, ~ 24 ( 1) ( a) ( 1)pr ovi des i n per t i nent par t :

Whoever , upon any way or i n any pl ace t o whi ch t hepubl i c has a r i ght of ac ces s , or upon any way or i n

any pl ace t o whi ch member s of t he publ i c have accessas i nvi t ees or l i censees, oper at es a mot or vehi cl ewi t h a per cent age, by wei ght , of al cohol i n t hei rbl ood of ei ght one- hundr edt hs or gr eat er , or whi l eunder t he i nf l uence of i nt oxi cat i ng l i quor , or of mar i j uana, nar cot i c dr ugs, depr essant s or st i mul ant

40


48/60

subst ances, al l as def i ned i n sect i on one of chapt erni net y- f our C, or t he vapor s of gl ue shal l be puni shedby a f i ne of not l ess t han f i ve hundr ed nor mor e t hanf i ve t housand dol l ar s or by i mpr i sonment f or not mor et han t wo and one- hal f year s , or bot h s uc h f i ne andi mpr i sonment .

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws Chapt er 94C,pr ovi des:

32C (a)

( a) Any per s on who knowi ngl y or i nt ent i onal l ymanuf act ur es, di st r i but es, di spenses or cul t i vat es, orpos s es s es wi t h i nt ent t o manuf act ur e, di s t r i but e,di spense or cuI t i vat e a cont r ol l ed subst ance i n Cl assD of sect i on t hi r t y- one shal l be i mpr i soned i n a j ai l

or house of cor r ect i on f or not mor e t han t wo year s orby a f i ne of not l ess t han f i ve hundr ed nor mor e t hanf i ve t housand dol l ar s , or bot h such f i ne andi mpr i sonment .

( b) Any per s on convi c t ed of vi ol at i ng t hi s s ect i onaf t er one or mor e pr i or convi ct i ons of manuf act ur i ng,di st r i but i ng, di spensi ng, cul t i vat i ng or possessi ngwi t h i nt ent t o manuf act ur e, di st r i but e, di spense orcul t i vat e a cont r ol l ed subst ance as def i ned by sect i ont hi r t y- one under t hi s or any pr i or l aw of t hi s

j ur i sdi ct i on or of any of f ense of any ot herj ur i sdi ct i on, f eder al , st at e, or t er r i t or i al , whi ch i st he same as or necessar i l y i ncl udes t he el ement s ofsai d of f ense shal l be puni shed by a t er m of i mpr i sonment i n a j ai l or house of cor r ect i on f or notl ess t han one nor mor e t han t wo and one- hal f year s, orby a f i ne of not l ess t han one t housand nor mor e t hant en t housand dol l ar s, or bot h such f i ne andi mpr i sonment .

Massachuset t spr ovi des:

Gener al Laws Chapt er 94C, 32L

Not wi t hs t andi ng any gener al or s peci al l aw t o t hecont r ar y, possessi on of one ounce or l ess of mar i huana

41


49/60

shall only be a civil offense, subj ecting an offender

who is eighteen years of age or older to a civil

penal ty of one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the

marihuana, but not to any other form of criminal or

civil punishment or disqualification. An offender

under the age of eighteen shall be subject to the same

forfei ture and civil penalty provisions, provided he

or she completes a drug awareness program which meets

the criteria set forth in Section 32Mof this Chapter.

The parents or legal guardian of any offender under

the age of eighteen shall be notified in accordance

with Section 32N of this Chapter of the offense and

the availability of a drug awareness program and

community service option. If an offender under the age

of eighteen fails within one year of the offense to

complete both a drug awareness program and the

required community service, the civil penalty may be

increased pursuant to Section 32N of this Chapter to

one thousand dollars and the offender and his or her

parents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay

that amount.

Except as specifically provided in "An Act

Establishing A Sensible State Marihuana Policy,"

neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political

subdivisions or their respective agencies, authorities

or instrumentalities may impose any form of penal ty,

sanction or disqualification on an offender for

possessing an ounce or less of marihuana. By way of

illustration rather than limitation, possession of one

ounce or less of marihuana shall not provide a basis

to deny an offender student financial aid, public

housing or any form of public financial assistance

including unemployment benefits, to deny the right to

operate a motor vehicle or to disqualify an offender

from serving as a foster parent or adoptive parent.

Information concerning the offense of possession of

one ounce or less of marihuana shall not be deemed

"criminal offender record information," "evaluative

information," or "intelligence information" as those

terms are defined in Section 167 of Chapter 6 of the

General Laws and shall not be recorded in the Criminal

Offender Record Information system.

42


50/60

As us ed her ei n, " pos s es s i on of one ounc e or l es s of mar i huana" i ncl udes possessi on of one ounce or l ess ofmar i huana or t et r ahydr ocannabi nol and havi ngcannabi noi ds or canni bi noi d met abol i t es i n t he ur i ne,bl ood, sal i va, sweat , hai r , f i nger nai l s, t oe nai l s orot her t i s sue or f l ui d of t he human body. Not hi ngcont ai ned her ei n s hal l be cons t r ued t o r epeal ormodi f y exi s t i ng l aws , or di nances or byl aws ,r egul at i ons, per s onnel pr act i ces or pol i ci esconcer ni ng t he oper at i on of mot or vehi cl es or ot heract i ons t aken whi l e under t he i nf l uence of mar i huanaor t et r ahydr ocannabi nol , l aws concer ni ng t he unl awf ulpos ses si on of pr es cr i pt i on f or ms of mar i huana ort et r ahydr ocannabi nol such as Mar i nol , possessi on ofmor e t han one ounce of mar i huana ort et r ahydr ocannabi nol , or sel l i ng, manuf act ur i ng ort r af f i cki ng i n mar i huana or t et r ahydr ocannabi nol .Not hi ng cont ai ned her ei n shal l pr ohi bi t a pol i t i cals ubdi vi s i on of t he Commonweal t h f r om enac t i ngor di nances or byl aws r egul at i ng or pr ohi bi t i ng t heconsumpt i on of mar i huana or t et r ahydr ocannabi nol i npubl i c pl aces and pr ovi di ng f or addi t i onal penal t i esf or t he publ i c use of mar i huana ort et r ahydr ocannabi nol .

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws Chapt er 94C, ~ 34 pr ovi des:

No per son knowi ngl y or i nt ent i onal l y shal l possess acont r ol l ed s ubs t a nce unl es s s uc h s ubs t anc e wasobt ai ned di r ect l y, or pur suant t o a val i d pr escr i pt i onor or der , f r om a pr act i t i oner whi l e act i ng i n t hecour s e of hi s pr of es si onal pr act i ce, or except asot her wi s e aut hor i zed by t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi schapt er . Except as pr ovi ded i n Sect i on 32L of t hi sChapt er or as her ei naf t er pr ovi ded, any per son whovi ol at es t hi s sect i on shal l be puni shed byi mpr i sonment f or not mor e t han one year or by a f i ne

of not mor e t han one t housand dol l ar s, or by bot h suchf i ne and i mpr i sonment . Any per son who vi ol at es t hi ss ect i on by pos ses si ng her oi n s hal l f or t he f i r s tof f ense be puni shed by i mpr i sonment i n a house ofcor r ect i on f or not mor e t han t wo year s or by a f i ne ofnot mor e t han t wo t housand dol l ar s, or bot h, and f or a

43


51/60

second or subsequent of f ense shal l be puni shed byi mpr i sonment i n t he st at e pr i son f or not l ess t han t woand one- hal f year s nor mor e t han f i ve year s or by af i ne of not mor e t han f i ve t hous and dol l ar s andi mpr i sonment i n a j ai l or house of cor r ect i on f or notmor e t han t wo and one- hal f year s . Any per s on who

vi ol at es t hi s sect i on by possessi on of mor e t han oneounce of mar i huana or a cont r ol l ed subst ance i n Cl assE of sect i on t hi r t y- one shal l be puni shed byi mpr i sonment i n a house of cor r ect i on f or not mor et han si x mont hs or a f i ne of f i ve hundr ed dol l ar s, orbot h. Exc ept f or an of f ens e i nvol vi ng a c ont r ol l edsubst ance i n Cl ass E of sect i on t hi r t y- one, whoevervi ol at es t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s s ec t i on af t er one ormor e convi ct i ons of a vi ol at i on of t hi s sect i on or ofa f el ony under any ot her pr ovi si ons of t hi s chapt er ,or of a cor r espondi ng pr ovi si on of ear l i er l aw

r el at i ng t o t he sal e or manuf act ur e of a nar cot i c dr ugas def i ned i n sai d ear l i er l aw, shal l be puni shed byi mpr i sonment i n a house of cor r ect i on f or not mor et han t wo year s or by a f i ne of not mor e t han t wot housand dol l ar s, or bot h.

I f any per son who i s char ged wi t h a vi ol at i on of t hi ss ect i on has not pr evi ous l y been convi ct ed of avi ol at i on of any. pr ovi s i on of t hi s c hapt er or ot herpr ovi s i on of pr i or l aw r el at i ve t o nar c ot i c dr ugs orhar mf ul dr ugs as def i ned i n s ai d pr i or l aw, or of a

f el ony under t he l aws of any s t at e or of t he Uni t edSt at es r el at i ng t o such dr ugs, has had hi s casecont i nued wi t hout a f i ndi ng t o a cer t ai n dat e, or hasbeen convi ct ed and pl aced on pr obat i on, and i f , dur i ngt he per i od of sai d cont i nuance or of sai d pr obat i on,such per son does not vi ol at e any of t he condi t i ons ofs ai d cont i nuance or s ai d pr obat i on, t hen upon t heexpi r at i on of such per i od t he cour t may di smi ss t hepr oceedi ngs agai nst hi m, and may or der seal ed al lof f i c i al r ec or ds r el at i ng t o hi s ar r es t , i ndi c t ment ,convi ct i on, pr obat i on, cont i nuance or di s char ge

pur s uant t o t hi s s ect i on; pr ovi ded, however , t hatdepar t ment al r ecor ds whi ch ar e not publ i c r ecor ds,mai nt ai ned by pol i ce and ot her l aw enf or cementagenci es, shal l not be seal ed; and pr ovi ded f ur t her ,t hat such a r ecor d shal l be mai nt ai ned i n a separ at ef i l e by t he depar t ment of pr obat i on s ol el y f or t he

44


52/60

pur pose of use by t he cour t s i n det er mi ni ng whet her ornot i n subsequent pr oceedi ngs such per son qual i f i esunder t hi s s ect i on. The r ecor d mai nt ai ned by t hedepar t ment of pr obat i on shal l cont ai n onl y i dent i f yi ngi nf or mat i on concer ni ng t he per son and a st at ement t hat

he has had hi s r ecor d seal ed pur s uant t o t hepr ovi si ons of t hi s sect i on. Any convi ct i on, t he r ecor dof whi ch has been seal ed under t hi s sect i on, shal l notbe deemed a convi ct i on f or pur poses of anydi squal i f i cat i on or f or any ot her pur pose. No per sonas t o whom such seal i ng has been or der ed shal l be hel dt her eaf t er under any pr ovi si on of anY, l aw t o be gui l t yof per j ur y or ot her wi se gi vi ng a f al se st at ement byr eas on of hi s f ai l ur e t o r ec i t e or ac knowl edge s uc har r est , i ndi ct ment , convi ct i on, di smi ssal ,cont i nuance, s eal i ng, or any ot her r el at ed cour t

pr oceedi ng, i n r esponse t o any i nqui r y made of hi m f orany pur pose.

Not wi t hst andi ng any ot her penal t y pr ovi si on of t hi ss ect i on, any per s on who i s convi ct ed f or t he f i r s tt i me under t hi s sect i on f or t he poss essi on of mar i huana or a cont r ol l ed subst ance i n Cl ass E and whohas not pr evi ous l y been convi c t ed of any of f ens epur s uant t o t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s chapt er , or anypr ovi s i on of pr i or l aw r el at i ng t o nar c ot i c dr ugs orhar mf ul dr ugs as def i ned i n sai d pr i or l aw shal l bepl aced on pr obat i on unl es s s uch per s on does notc ons ent t her et o, or unl es s t he c our t f i l es a wr i t t enmemor andum st at i ng t he r easons f or not so doi ng. Upons uc ces s f ul c ompl et i on of s ai d pr obat i on, t he c as eshal l be di smi ssed and r ecor ds shal l be seal ed.

I t s hal l be a pr i ma f aci e def ens e t o a char ge of possessi on of mar i huana under t hi s sect i on t hat t hedef endant i s a pat i ent c er t i f i ed t o par t i c i pat e i n at her apeut i c r es ear c h pr ogr am des cr i bed i n c hapt erni net y- f our D, and pos s es sed t he mar i huana f orper sonal use pur suant t o such pr ogr am.

45


53/60

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws Chapt er 269,pr ovi des i n per t i nent par t :

~ 10 ( h) ( 1)

Whoever owns, possesses or t r ansf er s a f i r ear m, r i f l e,shot gun or ammuni t i on wi t hout compl yi ng wi t h t hepr ovi s i ons of s ec t i on 129C of c hapt er 140 s hal l be

puni s hed by i mpr i s onment i n a j ai l or hous e of cor r ect i on f or not mor e t han 2 year s or by a f i ne of not mor e t han $500. Whoever commi t s a second ors ubs equent vi ol at i on of t hi s par agr aph s hal l bepuni shed by i mpr i sonment i n a house of cor r ect i on f ornot mor e t han 2 year s or by a f i ne of not mor e t han$1, 000, or bot h. Any of f i cer aut hor i z ed t o makear r est s may ar r est wi t hout a war r ant any per son whomt he of f i cer has pr obabl e cause t o bel i eve has vi ol at edt hi s par agr aph.

Massachuset t s Gener al Laws Chapt er 276, ~ 2B pr ovi desi n per t i nent par t :

A per s on s eeki ng a s ear c h war r ant s hal l appearper s onal l y bef or e a cour t or j us t i ce aut hor i z ed t oi ssue sear ch war r ant s i n cr i mi nal cases and shal l gi vean af f i davi t i n s ubs t ant i al l y t he f or m her ei naf t erpr es cr i bed. Such af f i davi t s hal l cont ai n t he f act s ,i nf or mat i on, and ci r cumst ances upon whi ch such per son

r el i es t o est abl i sh suf f i ci ent gr ounds f or t hei s suance of t he war r ant . The per s on i s sui ng t hewar r ant s hal l r et ai n t he af f i davi t and s hal l del i veri t wi t hi n t hr ee days af t er t he i ssuance of t he war r antt o t he cour t t o whi ch t he war r ant i s r et ur nabl e. Upont he r et ur n of s ai d war r ant , t he af f i davi t s hal l beat t ached t o i t and s hal l be f i l ed t her ewi t h, and i tshal l not be a publ i c document unt i l t he war r ant i sr et ur ned.

46


54/60

Com. v. Valle, 80 Mass.App.Ct. 1115 (2011)

956 N.E.2d 1265

Unpublished Disposition

80 Mass.App.Ct. 1115

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

NOTE: THIS OPINION WILL NOT APPEAR

IN A PRINTED VOLUME. THE DISPOSITIONWILL APPEAR IN A REPORTER TABLE.

NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court

pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to

the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the

facts ofthe case or the panel's decisional rationale.

Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the

entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of

the panel that decided the case. A summary decision

pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25,2008,

may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of

the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Trooper Donah approached the car and asked the defendant

for his license and registration. During the stop, Donah

smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car and

the odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath. In response to

questions, the defendant admitted to both smoking marijuana

and drinking alcohol earlier in the day.

The trooper then ordered Valle from the car, handcuffed him,

and placed him in a police cruiser. At this time, the defendant

had not been formally arrested. Donah then searched the car

for marijuana. He found three burnt cigarettes in the car's

ashtray; they carried the aroma of marijuana. The cigarette

remains had a total weight of less than one ounce.

Donah continued his search of the car and located a loaded

fireann under the front passenger seat of the car. A second

trooper, Brian Clapprood, arrived and assisted with the search

of the car. Donah then placed Valle under formal arrest andgave him his Miranda warnings.

COMMONWEALTH

Opinion

By the Court (CYPHER, SIKORA &HANLON, JJ.).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Anthony Cra an Brief

Documents

Transcript of Anthony Cra an Brief